An Economic Evaluation of Family‐Based Versus Traditional Helicobacter pylori Screen‐and‐Treat Strategy: Based on Real‐World Data and Microsimulation Model
ABSTRACT Objective There is an economic evaluation on the family‐based Helicobacter pylori screen‐and‐treat strategy (FBHS) in China. This study aimed to compare the cost‐effectiveness of the FBHS with the traditional H. pylori screen‐and‐treat strategy (TBHS). Materials and Methods A seven‐state mi...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Helicobacter (Cambridge, Mass.) Mass.), 2024-07, Vol.29 (4), p.e13123-n/a |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | n/a |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | e13123 |
| container_title | Helicobacter (Cambridge, Mass.) |
| container_volume | 29 |
| creator | Ma, Yue Zhou, Xianzhu Liu, Yashi Xu, Shihan Ma, Aixia Du, Yiqi Li, Hongchao |
| description | ABSTRACT
Objective
There is an economic evaluation on the family‐based Helicobacter pylori screen‐and‐treat strategy (FBHS) in China. This study aimed to compare the cost‐effectiveness of the FBHS with the traditional H. pylori screen‐and‐treat strategy (TBHS).
Materials and Methods
A seven‐state microsimulation model, including H. pylori infection and gastric cancer states, was constructed on the basis of the target family samples from 29 provinces in China. Taking a lifetime horizon from a healthcare system perspective, the long‐term costs and health outcomes of the FBHS and TBHS screening strategies were simulated separately, and economic evaluations were performed. The model parameters were primarily derived from real‐world data, published literature, and expert opinions. The primary outcome was the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost/quality‐adjusted life‐year (QALY) gained. One‐way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were performed to assess the uncertainty of the results.
Results
The base‐case analysis revealed that the average costs for FBHS and TBHS were 563.67 CNY and 574.08 CNY, respectively, with corresponding average QALYs of 14.83 and 14.79. The ICER for the comparison between the two strategies was −214.07, indicating that FBHS was an absolutely dominant strategy with better cost‐effectiveness. The results of both one‐way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were robust. When taking into account the added benefit of the higher H. pylori eradication rate in FBHS, the average costs were further reduced, and the average QALYs were increased, solidifying its position as an unequivocally dominant strategy.
Conclusion
The FBHS is an absolutely dominant and cost‐effective strategy that enables an optimized allocation of screening resources. Decision‐makers should prioritize FBHS when developing H. pylori prevention and control strategies. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/hel.13123 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3089882892</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3097657412</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3133-f21743f91230c7025c2deb42e737f008606ea85254f7b9b25a5d277c3bbaf6733</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1u1DAQxy0Eoh9w4AWQJS70kNYf8TrhVsqWRdoKiS5wjCbOBFw58dZOQLnxCLwDb8aT4JDCAQkfxpbmN__xzJ-QJ5yd8nTOPqM75ZILeY8cciVkpqQu7qc3K2SWy6I8IEcx3jDGlMzLh-RAliklRH5Ifpz3dG187ztr6PoLuBEG63vqW3oJnXXTz2_fX0LEhn7AEMdIdwEaOyPg6AadNb4GM2Cg-8n5YOm1CYh9qoK-SXEXEAZ6PQQY8NP0gi5aqcE7BJfyH31wDX0FA9BUQK-sCT7abnTLN658g-4RedCCi_j47j4m7y_Xu4tNtn37-s3F-TYzkkuZtYLrXLZl2gMzmgllRIN1LlBL3TJWrNgKoVBC5a2uy1ooUI3Q2si6hnalpTwmzxfdffC3I8ah6mw06Bz06MdYSVaURSGKUiT02T_ojR9D2slMlXqldM5n6mSh5qFiwLbaB9tBmCrOqtm5KjlX_XYusU_vFMe6w-Yv-ceqBJwtwFfrcPq_UrVZbxfJXwDSprw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3097657412</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An Economic Evaluation of Family‐Based Versus Traditional Helicobacter pylori Screen‐and‐Treat Strategy: Based on Real‐World Data and Microsimulation Model</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Ma, Yue ; Zhou, Xianzhu ; Liu, Yashi ; Xu, Shihan ; Ma, Aixia ; Du, Yiqi ; Li, Hongchao</creator><creatorcontrib>Ma, Yue ; Zhou, Xianzhu ; Liu, Yashi ; Xu, Shihan ; Ma, Aixia ; Du, Yiqi ; Li, Hongchao</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT
Objective
There is an economic evaluation on the family‐based Helicobacter pylori screen‐and‐treat strategy (FBHS) in China. This study aimed to compare the cost‐effectiveness of the FBHS with the traditional H. pylori screen‐and‐treat strategy (TBHS).
Materials and Methods
A seven‐state microsimulation model, including H. pylori infection and gastric cancer states, was constructed on the basis of the target family samples from 29 provinces in China. Taking a lifetime horizon from a healthcare system perspective, the long‐term costs and health outcomes of the FBHS and TBHS screening strategies were simulated separately, and economic evaluations were performed. The model parameters were primarily derived from real‐world data, published literature, and expert opinions. The primary outcome was the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost/quality‐adjusted life‐year (QALY) gained. One‐way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were performed to assess the uncertainty of the results.
Results
The base‐case analysis revealed that the average costs for FBHS and TBHS were 563.67 CNY and 574.08 CNY, respectively, with corresponding average QALYs of 14.83 and 14.79. The ICER for the comparison between the two strategies was −214.07, indicating that FBHS was an absolutely dominant strategy with better cost‐effectiveness. The results of both one‐way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were robust. When taking into account the added benefit of the higher H. pylori eradication rate in FBHS, the average costs were further reduced, and the average QALYs were increased, solidifying its position as an unequivocally dominant strategy.
Conclusion
The FBHS is an absolutely dominant and cost‐effective strategy that enables an optimized allocation of screening resources. Decision‐makers should prioritize FBHS when developing H. pylori prevention and control strategies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1083-4389</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1523-5378</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1523-5378</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/hel.13123</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39108224</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; China ; Computer Simulation ; Cost benefit analysis ; Costs ; cost‐utility analysis ; economic evaluation ; Economics ; Effectiveness ; family‐based screening ; Female ; Gastric cancer ; Helicobacter Infections - diagnosis ; Helicobacter Infections - drug therapy ; Helicobacter Infections - economics ; Helicobacter Infections - microbiology ; Helicobacter pylori ; Helicobacter pylori - genetics ; Helicobacter pylori - isolation & purification ; Humans ; Male ; Mass Screening - economics ; Mass Screening - methods ; microsimulation ; Middle Aged ; Quality-Adjusted Life Years ; real‐world study ; Sensitivity analysis ; Service life assessment ; Stomach Neoplasms - microbiology ; Uncertainty analysis</subject><ispartof>Helicobacter (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024-07, Vol.29 (4), p.e13123-n/a</ispartof><rights>2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3133-f21743f91230c7025c2deb42e737f008606ea85254f7b9b25a5d277c3bbaf6733</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4261-6888</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fhel.13123$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fhel.13123$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39108224$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ma, Yue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Xianzhu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Yashi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Shihan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ma, Aixia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Du, Yiqi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Hongchao</creatorcontrib><title>An Economic Evaluation of Family‐Based Versus Traditional Helicobacter pylori Screen‐and‐Treat Strategy: Based on Real‐World Data and Microsimulation Model</title><title>Helicobacter (Cambridge, Mass.)</title><addtitle>Helicobacter</addtitle><description>ABSTRACT
Objective
There is an economic evaluation on the family‐based Helicobacter pylori screen‐and‐treat strategy (FBHS) in China. This study aimed to compare the cost‐effectiveness of the FBHS with the traditional H. pylori screen‐and‐treat strategy (TBHS).
Materials and Methods
A seven‐state microsimulation model, including H. pylori infection and gastric cancer states, was constructed on the basis of the target family samples from 29 provinces in China. Taking a lifetime horizon from a healthcare system perspective, the long‐term costs and health outcomes of the FBHS and TBHS screening strategies were simulated separately, and economic evaluations were performed. The model parameters were primarily derived from real‐world data, published literature, and expert opinions. The primary outcome was the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost/quality‐adjusted life‐year (QALY) gained. One‐way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were performed to assess the uncertainty of the results.
Results
The base‐case analysis revealed that the average costs for FBHS and TBHS were 563.67 CNY and 574.08 CNY, respectively, with corresponding average QALYs of 14.83 and 14.79. The ICER for the comparison between the two strategies was −214.07, indicating that FBHS was an absolutely dominant strategy with better cost‐effectiveness. The results of both one‐way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were robust. When taking into account the added benefit of the higher H. pylori eradication rate in FBHS, the average costs were further reduced, and the average QALYs were increased, solidifying its position as an unequivocally dominant strategy.
Conclusion
The FBHS is an absolutely dominant and cost‐effective strategy that enables an optimized allocation of screening resources. Decision‐makers should prioritize FBHS when developing H. pylori prevention and control strategies.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>China</subject><subject>Computer Simulation</subject><subject>Cost benefit analysis</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>cost‐utility analysis</subject><subject>economic evaluation</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Effectiveness</subject><subject>family‐based screening</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastric cancer</subject><subject>Helicobacter Infections - diagnosis</subject><subject>Helicobacter Infections - drug therapy</subject><subject>Helicobacter Infections - economics</subject><subject>Helicobacter Infections - microbiology</subject><subject>Helicobacter pylori</subject><subject>Helicobacter pylori - genetics</subject><subject>Helicobacter pylori - isolation & purification</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mass Screening - economics</subject><subject>Mass Screening - methods</subject><subject>microsimulation</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Quality-Adjusted Life Years</subject><subject>real‐world study</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Service life assessment</subject><subject>Stomach Neoplasms - microbiology</subject><subject>Uncertainty analysis</subject><issn>1083-4389</issn><issn>1523-5378</issn><issn>1523-5378</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1u1DAQxy0Eoh9w4AWQJS70kNYf8TrhVsqWRdoKiS5wjCbOBFw58dZOQLnxCLwDb8aT4JDCAQkfxpbmN__xzJ-QJ5yd8nTOPqM75ZILeY8cciVkpqQu7qc3K2SWy6I8IEcx3jDGlMzLh-RAliklRH5Ifpz3dG187ztr6PoLuBEG63vqW3oJnXXTz2_fX0LEhn7AEMdIdwEaOyPg6AadNb4GM2Cg-8n5YOm1CYh9qoK-SXEXEAZ6PQQY8NP0gi5aqcE7BJfyH31wDX0FA9BUQK-sCT7abnTLN658g-4RedCCi_j47j4m7y_Xu4tNtn37-s3F-TYzkkuZtYLrXLZl2gMzmgllRIN1LlBL3TJWrNgKoVBC5a2uy1ooUI3Q2si6hnalpTwmzxfdffC3I8ah6mw06Bz06MdYSVaURSGKUiT02T_ojR9D2slMlXqldM5n6mSh5qFiwLbaB9tBmCrOqtm5KjlX_XYusU_vFMe6w-Yv-ceqBJwtwFfrcPq_UrVZbxfJXwDSprw</recordid><startdate>202407</startdate><enddate>202407</enddate><creator>Ma, Yue</creator><creator>Zhou, Xianzhu</creator><creator>Liu, Yashi</creator><creator>Xu, Shihan</creator><creator>Ma, Aixia</creator><creator>Du, Yiqi</creator><creator>Li, Hongchao</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4261-6888</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202407</creationdate><title>An Economic Evaluation of Family‐Based Versus Traditional Helicobacter pylori Screen‐and‐Treat Strategy: Based on Real‐World Data and Microsimulation Model</title><author>Ma, Yue ; Zhou, Xianzhu ; Liu, Yashi ; Xu, Shihan ; Ma, Aixia ; Du, Yiqi ; Li, Hongchao</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3133-f21743f91230c7025c2deb42e737f008606ea85254f7b9b25a5d277c3bbaf6733</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>China</topic><topic>Computer Simulation</topic><topic>Cost benefit analysis</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>cost‐utility analysis</topic><topic>economic evaluation</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Effectiveness</topic><topic>family‐based screening</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastric cancer</topic><topic>Helicobacter Infections - diagnosis</topic><topic>Helicobacter Infections - drug therapy</topic><topic>Helicobacter Infections - economics</topic><topic>Helicobacter Infections - microbiology</topic><topic>Helicobacter pylori</topic><topic>Helicobacter pylori - genetics</topic><topic>Helicobacter pylori - isolation & purification</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mass Screening - economics</topic><topic>Mass Screening - methods</topic><topic>microsimulation</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Quality-Adjusted Life Years</topic><topic>real‐world study</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Service life assessment</topic><topic>Stomach Neoplasms - microbiology</topic><topic>Uncertainty analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ma, Yue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Xianzhu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Yashi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Shihan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ma, Aixia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Du, Yiqi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Hongchao</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Helicobacter (Cambridge, Mass.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ma, Yue</au><au>Zhou, Xianzhu</au><au>Liu, Yashi</au><au>Xu, Shihan</au><au>Ma, Aixia</au><au>Du, Yiqi</au><au>Li, Hongchao</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An Economic Evaluation of Family‐Based Versus Traditional Helicobacter pylori Screen‐and‐Treat Strategy: Based on Real‐World Data and Microsimulation Model</atitle><jtitle>Helicobacter (Cambridge, Mass.)</jtitle><addtitle>Helicobacter</addtitle><date>2024-07</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>e13123</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>e13123-n/a</pages><issn>1083-4389</issn><issn>1523-5378</issn><eissn>1523-5378</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT
Objective
There is an economic evaluation on the family‐based Helicobacter pylori screen‐and‐treat strategy (FBHS) in China. This study aimed to compare the cost‐effectiveness of the FBHS with the traditional H. pylori screen‐and‐treat strategy (TBHS).
Materials and Methods
A seven‐state microsimulation model, including H. pylori infection and gastric cancer states, was constructed on the basis of the target family samples from 29 provinces in China. Taking a lifetime horizon from a healthcare system perspective, the long‐term costs and health outcomes of the FBHS and TBHS screening strategies were simulated separately, and economic evaluations were performed. The model parameters were primarily derived from real‐world data, published literature, and expert opinions. The primary outcome was the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost/quality‐adjusted life‐year (QALY) gained. One‐way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were performed to assess the uncertainty of the results.
Results
The base‐case analysis revealed that the average costs for FBHS and TBHS were 563.67 CNY and 574.08 CNY, respectively, with corresponding average QALYs of 14.83 and 14.79. The ICER for the comparison between the two strategies was −214.07, indicating that FBHS was an absolutely dominant strategy with better cost‐effectiveness. The results of both one‐way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were robust. When taking into account the added benefit of the higher H. pylori eradication rate in FBHS, the average costs were further reduced, and the average QALYs were increased, solidifying its position as an unequivocally dominant strategy.
Conclusion
The FBHS is an absolutely dominant and cost‐effective strategy that enables an optimized allocation of screening resources. Decision‐makers should prioritize FBHS when developing H. pylori prevention and control strategies.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>39108224</pmid><doi>10.1111/hel.13123</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4261-6888</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1083-4389 |
| ispartof | Helicobacter (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024-07, Vol.29 (4), p.e13123-n/a |
| issn | 1083-4389 1523-5378 1523-5378 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3089882892 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Adult China Computer Simulation Cost benefit analysis Costs cost‐utility analysis economic evaluation Economics Effectiveness family‐based screening Female Gastric cancer Helicobacter Infections - diagnosis Helicobacter Infections - drug therapy Helicobacter Infections - economics Helicobacter Infections - microbiology Helicobacter pylori Helicobacter pylori - genetics Helicobacter pylori - isolation & purification Humans Male Mass Screening - economics Mass Screening - methods microsimulation Middle Aged Quality-Adjusted Life Years real‐world study Sensitivity analysis Service life assessment Stomach Neoplasms - microbiology Uncertainty analysis |
| title | An Economic Evaluation of Family‐Based Versus Traditional Helicobacter pylori Screen‐and‐Treat Strategy: Based on Real‐World Data and Microsimulation Model |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-16T02%3A10%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20Economic%20Evaluation%20of%20Family%E2%80%90Based%20Versus%20Traditional%20Helicobacter%20pylori%20Screen%E2%80%90and%E2%80%90Treat%20Strategy:%20Based%20on%20Real%E2%80%90World%20Data%20and%20Microsimulation%20Model&rft.jtitle=Helicobacter%20(Cambridge,%20Mass.)&rft.au=Ma,%20Yue&rft.date=2024-07&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=e13123&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=e13123-n/a&rft.issn=1083-4389&rft.eissn=1523-5378&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/hel.13123&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3097657412%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3097657412&rft_id=info:pmid/39108224&rfr_iscdi=true |